Selection, or differential reproductive success among individuals due to trait
differences, is the most reasonable ultimate explanation for rape in humans.
Presumably, all evolution leading to adaptation [FN26] has been driven
by inter-individual selection, and not by intergroup selection. Evidence for
this is vast, and is seen in the functional designs of adaptations. Adaptations'
benefactors are individuals who bear them and the genes that code for them.
There is no example of adaptation that has evolved because it promotes group
survival or reproductive success. If group success is promoted by adaptation,
it is merely a by-product, and not the reason the adaptation evolved.

The inter-individual selection responsible for rape may have been direct or
indirect. [FN27] In the case of direct selection for rape,
selection may have favored raping because rape had a net positive effect on
rapists' reproductive success. *144 Despite its costs, rape increased
mate number and thereby reproductive success of males. If so, there is a psychological
adaptation in men for rape that is specific to rape. Because women have mate
choice adaptations leading them to prefer protective mates with status and resources,
as well as to prefer mates with specific physical features such as body symmetry
that mark inherited health, [FN28] we can infer that rape, by circumventing
female mate choice, increased males' mate number in human evolutionary history.

Finding such a specific adaptation is strong evidence that direct selection
pressure for the adaptation's function brought about the evolution of the adaptation.
[FN29] This does not, however, imply that rape currently promotes the
reproductive success of individuals. Indeed, whether rape is an adaptation--a
product of past selection--is unrelated to whether rape is currently adaptive.
The issues are distinct. [FN30]

In the case of indirect selection for rape, rape is an incidental effect of
direct selection for male sexual traits other than rape. More precisely, rape
is a byproduct of men's adaptation for pursuit of casual, non-committal, consensual
sex. This pursuit was selected because it increased male mate number and because
men's investment for offspring production is minimal. Put another way, rape
evolved incidentally due to direct selection for obtaining a large number of
consensual partners without romantic commitment.

At this point in time, we do not know which is true--whether rape reflects rape-specific
adaptation or arises incidentally out of an adaptation for pursuit of consensual
sexual variety. On theoretical grounds, however, the rape-specific adaptation
hypothesis is more likely. This is because of the large costs of raping to the
rapist and thus the expectation that rape exists because of rape's overcompensating
benefits to male reproductive success in human evolutionary history. Furthermore,
rape appears to have existed in human evolutionary history, as seen in women's
adaptation to deal with rape. [FN31] Even today, rape is common. Selection
has not eliminated this costly behavior.

----page
145: There are at least six hypothetical psychological rape adaptations: (1)
a psychological mechanism linking the vulnerability of victims to the use of
rape by men; (2) a psychological mechanism linking the lack of resources (or
the associated variable of a lack of sexual access to females) to the use of
rape by men; (3) a psychological mechanism causing males to have a different
preference (in terms of sexual attractiveness as indicated by age) in rape victims
than in consensual sexual partners; (4) a psychological-physiological mechanism
producing changes in the sperm count of ejaculates during rape (or to depictions
of rape) that show specific functional design for rape; (5) a psychological
mechanism producing differences in the arousal of males to depictions of rapes
than to consensual matings; (6) a psychological-physiological mechanism producing
marital rape as a sperm competition tactic.

These putative mechanisms are not mutually exclusive. More than one of these
mechanisms, or all six of them, could exist as part of men's sexual psychological
adaptation to rape. In addition, the adaptations might appear only in certain
men in what biologists refer to as a frequency-dependent mix of adaptations...

pg 146: The
resource-deprivation hypothesis cannot, however, explain all rape. Indeed, there
are many instances of rape by high-status or physically attractive men with
consensual-sex access to many women. Presumably, rape by men with resources
and status arises from a different rape-specific adaptation. For example, according
to the first hypothesis many men will rape when the perceived benefits exceed
the perceived costs.

Despite
efforts by feminists to reject biological theory and portray rape as a crime
of socially constructed domination, theorists continue to put forth accounts
describing men as suffering from irresistible forces that compel them to rape:

Anthropologist Craig Palmer of
the University of Colorado and biologist Randy Thornhill of the University
of New Mexico plan to pulblish a book A Natural History of Rape:
Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion, scheduled for
release in April by MIT Press.
Refuting claims that rape is a crime of male domination, which has evoleved
as a form of male reproductive behavior. They write that social scientists
promote "erroneous solutions" to rape because they incorrectly view the crime
as controlled by deviant urges to control and dominate, not by sexual desire.
The scientists suggest that women should take steps to deter irrepressible
male impulses by not dressing provocatively or participating in unsupervised
dating. But they do not
equate "natural" as good and agree that their public mission is
to make rape extinct as a trait in human beings. The two contend that current
thinking causes of rape fail in refusing to acknowledge that by definition
rape requires sexual arousal of the rapist. For more on their work, read Scientists:
Rape not about power, but sex, Scripps Howard News Service Found on the Web
at: http://www.hoosiertimes.com/stories/2000/01/11/news.000111_A4_MCW80871.sto.
(optional reading)

But Darwinian biological theorists remind readers that the discovery
of biological bases for destructive human behaviors (such as rape) does not
imply social acceptance of such behaviors:

First, to say something is a product of natural selection is not say that
it is unchangeable; just about any manifestation of human nature can be changed,
given an apt alteration of the environment -- though the required alteration
will in some cases be prohibitively drastic. Second, to say that something
is "natural" is not to say that it is good. There is no reason to
adopt natural selection's "values" as our own. But presumably if
we want to pursue values that are a t odds with natural selection's, we need
to know what we're up against. If we want to change some disconcertingly stubborn
parts of our moral code, it would help to know where they come from. And where
they ultimately come from is human nature, however complexly that nature
is refracted by the many layers of circumstance and cultural inheritance through
which it passes. Robert Wright, THE MORAL ANIMAL, New York: Vintage Books,
1994 at 31.

2. COMMODIFICATION THEORY:
Some theorists have posited rape as a crime of property, in which sex is a commodity
which is stolen from a woman by a rapist. Baker clearly describes such a theory
in:

2. *603 For some, sex
is a commodity, [FN223] and if sex is a commodity, then taking it is theft.
The definitions of lovemaking discussed above may attempt to resist the classification
of sex as a commodity, but most people rarely, if ever, discuss the personal,
intimate, and shared experiences of sex. We live in a culture that rarely
discusses sex as anything other than a commodity. Indeed, the more objectified
and commodified the conversation, the easier it is for most people --especially
young people--to talk about sex. [FN224] Some people are never able to talk
about the int imate aspects of sex, even if they do understand them. It is
hardly surprising that most young people neither talk about nor understand
sexual intimacy.

Instead, youths, particularly
young men, are bombarded by a culture that sexualizes commodities and commodifies
women's sexuality. Companies sell products by selling the sexuality of the
women endorsing the product. [FN225] The product and the sex are purposefully
conflated. Sex is also purposefully commodified. Men can easily buy sex, even
though all but one state prohibit prostitution. [FN226] Men can also buy pornography
and purchase tickets to peep shows. What motivates many rapists may not be
substantively different from that which motivates men who go to prostitutes
or purchase tickets to peep shows. None of these acts requires mutual enjoyment
or emotional intimacy, and they are all called sex. Thus, men are able to
satisfy a desire for sex without having to incorporate the complexities of
sexually intimate communication.

*604 This cultural endorsement
and marketing of sex as a commodified good leads to an increased desire for,
and sense of entitlement to, sex. [FN227] Most men are taught that sexual
desire is like hunger: when it is there, you satisfy it. Women are candybars.
Of course, food is not free and neither is sex, but precisely because men
can and do pay for sex, [FN228] taking it without consent becomes much less
morally reprehensible than other violent crimes. Thus, itis not surprising
that one study found that thirty-nine percent of convicted rapists were caught
in the course of a robbery. [FN229] As many of these men conceded, they raped
because she was there. [FN230] They were already breaking the laws of trespass
and ownership--why not take one more thing?

Men know that taking sex without
consent is wrong, but many men do not perceive it as really bad. The relationship
between alcohol and rape demonstrates this point. In one study of college
men who had committed sexual assault, seventy-five percent said that they
had used alcohol or drugs prior to the assault. [FN231] Another study of convicted
rapists found a comparable seventy-five percent who admitted to using drugs
20 or alcohol prior to the attack. [FN232] All of the college gang rapes that
were analyzed in a 1985 study involved alcohol. [FN233] This direct relationship
between alcohol use and rape exists, despite clear scientific evidence showing
that "[a]lcohol disinhibits psychological sexual arousal and suppresses physiological
responding." [FN234] What may explain the correspondence between alcohol use
and rape therefore is not alcohol's affect on sex drive, but rather alcohol's
tendency to decrease inhibitions against taking that to which one has no right.
Teenagers get drunk and go get sex in the same way that they get high and
go to the 7-11 to shoplift candybars. They know it is wrong, but it is not
that bad. Most adolescents do not get drunk and go rob banks. They do not
get drunk and commit murder. They do get *605 drunk and break little
rules. They shoplift and joyride and vandalize. The rule against raping, particularly
date raping, is like the rule against shoplifting--it is a little rule. [FN235]

Besides the commodification
theme, Baker also discusses the connection between sex and lovemaking, and the
related finding that some men rape because they want sex. She also reviews the
theme of dividing-- that men rape women in order to establish power over, or
distinction from, other men. Finally she reviwes men who rape as a form of expressing
control, anger or sadism.

Malamuth
and colleagues propose that rape proneness among men is proximately caused not
by genetic variation, but by developmental events involving learning. Their
analyses indicate that rape-prone men come from harsh developmental backgrounds
involving impersonal and short-term social relationships, and backgrounds in
which manipulation, coercion, and violence are valid ways of conducting social
relationships.

Malamuth
began his research program in sexual aggression from a feminist perspective
but decided that issues of rape, power, and control could not be sufficiently
explained without evolutionary concepts. Based on his extensive empirical research,
20 two interacting pathways resulting in sexual aggression have been identified.
The impersonal sex pathway is characterized by association with delinquent peers,
introduction to sexual activity at a young age, and having many sexual partners.
The hostile masculinity pathway is related to an insecure sense of masculinity,
hostility, distrust, and a desire to dominate women.
From Stephen Gold's review of: Sex,
Power, Conflict: Evolutionary and Feminist Perspectives, Edited by David M.
Buss and Neil M. Malamuth. Oxford University, Press, New York, 1996

"[F]orced sexual contact in the name of passion or personality
may support rather than refute
a claim of gender-motivation because it shows a disrespect for women. [FN130]
... [There is] research
indicating that acquaintance rapes frequently are premeditated and are predicated
on discriminatory biases
about male entitlement to coerce sexual relations with women against their
will. [FN131]

In addition to the workplace sexual assaults and the gang rapes analyzed
in the first VAWA Civil Rights
Remedy cases, sexual assault and domestic violence situations may contain
other evidence that reflects *147
gender-motivation. A perpetrator may have uttered gender-derogatory epithets
such as "bitch,"
"slut," or "whore" in the course of committing a violent
act. He may have made comments that reflect
anti-female bias such as those cited in the Brzonkala case. [FN132] A defendant
may have made derogatory
comments about a woman's physiology or may have mutilated her genitals during
an assault. In acquaintance
rape cases, a defendant may have disregarded a woman's protests, reflecting
the stereotypical view that "no"
means "yes" that underlies much violence against women. [FN133]
Or a defendant may have committed serial
rapes or participated in gang rapes. [FN134]"

5. CONTROL THEORY: Examining rape not as an
matter of sexuality, but rather as an expression of control, feminist scholars
have challenged current understandings of rape law to change the focus to acknowledge
the control issues involved.

The issue of whether
rape should be conceptualized as sexual or violent behavior is carefully examined
by Muehlenhard et al. The authors discuss the question from the perspective
of the victim and perpetrator, and further break down the issue into whether
the motivation, consequence, or experience of the assault is being discussed.
The authors recommend moving the issue beyond sex versus violence to a focus
on control. They suggest defining sexual coercion on the basis not of whether
the woman was a victim of violence but of whether she freely consented to
the activity. The issue of consent is intertwined with the role of alcohol
in sexual aggression.Abbey et al. discuss the link between alcohol use and
sexual aggression. The evidence suggests that in almost 50% of the incidents
of sexual aggression, alcohol has been used by one person and, most often,
by both individuals. Drinking alcohol on a date establishes expectancies in
men and women that can turn into self-fulfilling prophecies. According to
Abbey et al., alcohol makes general role stereotypes more salient and available
as excuses for inappropriate behavior. Using alcohol complicates the issue
of consent. At what point in the process of moving toward inebriation is a
woman no longer able to provide consent? Is drinking with a man who has expressed
an interest in sexual activity a form of implicit sexual consent?

The final chapter
presenting a feminist perspective deals with the impact of the threat of rape
on women's self-esteem, trust in others, and perception of personal control.
Bohner and Schwarz note that a greater belief in gender inequality is associated
with a higher frequency of rape, at both the individual and the societal level.
To examine the causal pathways in this association, they have studied the
impact of thinking about rape prior to a task and the subsequent effect on
dependent variables such as self-esteem. Bohner and Schwarz conclude that
their findings support the feminist claim that rape and rape myths contribute
to gender inequality. By having to worry about and guard against being raped,
coupled with culturally supported myths about rape, women are restricted in
their behavior and intimidated into feeling less good about themselves and
less trusting of others.